scutum of Augustean period

[montefortino]

I would also agree with the one size shield; the shortening of the shield that occured from the late republican period is probably the result of a more adaptable item (lighter,more practical in fights -mobility-, although less body coverage..) therefore it would probably answer my initial question: that the oval shield ,even shortened, appears smaller than the rectangular one of the imperial period.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Again: How do you know that the shields were in general shortened?

[caiusbeerquitius]

As far as I am aware, this was the theory of Michael Simkins (The Roman Army from Caesar to Trajan, Osprey 1984, p.23), based on the reliefs on the Arch of Orange. I've never been convinced by this. I wonder what other people think?

I see it like you.
Also, once again^^: How much physical evidence do we have for the rectangular shields? Were they really used in larger numbers for a long time?
(Even most shields on the tropaeum triaiani have curved sides)

[Matthew Amt]

it seems that the legionary scutum used up to around 100 BC was, lenghtwise, chin to feet; then (late republican period) it shorten to chin to shin; during the augustean period the shape changed (top and bottom cut off) and the length became chin to knee as for the later rectangular scutum; correct me if I'm wrong

I don't think Roman shields were ever "chin to feet". I do think the Republican oval tended to be a little taller on average than the Imperial styles, but it's not necessarily a huge difference. The shields on the Ahenobarbus relief and other Republican artwork look taller than those seen on the Mainz column bases, the Arch of Orange, etc. Certainly the Fayum shield is 8 or 9 inches taller than the big one from Dura Europas. It's true that the idea of the "Augustan" style being a "cut down" Republican oval is a modern idea, but I think it's a possibility. (And I try to present it only as a possibility!) I haven't read up on the Masada finds, so I don't know the dimensions offhand.

I would vote for a single "standard" sized shield and explain differences by manufacturing and the evolving times. The archeological evidence seems to support that.

Not that I've seen! All the physical remains we have are different sizes, including shields, shield fragments, and shield covers. Artwork shows different sizes, too. Even that literary source I mentioned above clearly indicates a variation in sizes.

It would be too slow and expensive to match shield size to each soldier.

I don't see why. Every shield is made by hand from strips of wood which couldn't help but vary in length at least a little. So would the hides used to cover them. I doubt there was any need to custom-fit a shield to a soldier! But there was clearly some variation in sizes--we don't know if there were set sizes, though.

...I suspect very large and small men were not used in the regular units. Like today's military, they quickly found themselves with special duties where they did not disrupt the line of battle. Assuming they were fit, The tall might become archers and the short slingers. (The tallest would also be candidates carrying the unit standards.) for Of course, when things got hot, everyone would stand in the line.

I've never heard of any suggestion of this! Well, I mean, Vegetius mentions minimum height requirements for the first cohort (and possibly for cavalry?), but we don't even know if that was true for the Principate. Standard bearers gained their rank through merit (and connections!), not through height. Why should archers need to be tall? And why should tall or short men "disrupt the line of battle"? Sorry, I just think you're out on a limb, here!

How much physical evidence do we have for the rectangular shields? Were they really used in larger numbers for a long time?

Well, the Mainz column bases, the Croy Hill relief, the relief from Osuna (?) (which I've seen labeled as 1st century *BC*), finds from several sites of long straight pieces of brass edging, fragments of shield covers (sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on those at the moment!), and of course Trajan's Column and the Dura Europas finds. Sure, it wasn't the *only* shape in use, but it was certainly common enough.

Valete,

Matthew

[montefortino]

then we are still left with a "mistery" about shields shapes, sizes and dimensions..although finds of shield brass or metal edgings/reinforcments seems to prove a certain "standardisation" (i.e Kalkriese finds..)

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, the Mainz column bases, the Croy Hill relief, the relief from Osuna (?) (which I've seen labeled as 1st century *BC*), finds from several sites of long straight pieces of brass edging, fragments of shield covers (sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on those at the moment!), and of course Trajan's Column and the Dura Europas finds. Sure, it wasn't the *only* shape in use, but it was certainly common enough.

Matt, I think I was not clear enough: with physical evidence I meant not epigraphical evidence. Also, with "rectangular" I meant with 4 right angles, which excludes shields with curved sides, naturally.
Dura: Yes. And some square shield bosses. BUT:

Were they really used in larger numbers for a long time?

[Matthew Amt]

then we are still left with a "mistery" about shields shapes, sizes and dimensions..

Ha, get used to that! Actually, we have quite a bit of data, showing us a range of shapes and sizes. Most of what we're missing is "why" something might have changed or varied, but that's pretty common. Best not to worry about "why", it will only keep you awake at night!

although finds of shield brass or metal edgings/reinforcments seems to prove a certain "standardisation" (i.e Kalkriese finds..)

How so? In fact, most surviving shields (Fayum, Doncaster, Dura) apparently did not have metal rims. Kalkriese also yielded pieces of lightning bolts in gilded silver--would those be standard? Don't get me wrong, little bits of archeology are wonderful things, and I get very excited about some new find that I can build in my basement. They all contribute to our overall knowledge. We just have to be a little careful about our conclusions, is all.

Matt, I think I was not clear enough: with physical evidence I meant not epigraphical evidence.

Ah, mea culpa, you did indeed say "physical" evidence! Gotcha now. Couldn't tell ya! There is a newish book out there with a ton of good evidence, but I haven't gotten a good enough look at it yet. And I don't exactly recall all the discussions about right-angle corners versus obtuse, etc. But I don't think we can go by just archeological evidence for this issue or most others. I certainly tend to trust artifacts over depictions for the construction details of any particular object, but we need the artwork to give us an overall picture and an idea of trends over time.

Also, with "rectangular" I meant with 4 right angles, which excludes shields with curved sides, naturally.

Yup, got that. Oh, wait, Arch of Orange is all curve-sided shields, ain't it? Fiddle... Well, I don't think depictions of the straight-sided rectangular scutum are exactly rare, even if they aren't ubiquitous!

Matthew

[Andrew Brozyna]

Matthew, what's the new book you mentioned? I have the Masada report. The shield boards are fragmentary, but there is a leather shield facing indicating a rectangular shape with curved corners. The text says the sides are straight, but the photo of this shield facing looks pretty curved like the "Augustan" scutum. The coolest part of the find confirms red paint on several of the shields.

[Paullus Scipio]

What we call the "Augustan" style (or just "curve-sided") may just be the result of making the old Republican oval shield shorter so that it could be slung on the back more easily, without bumping the legs or interfering with the pack pole.

As far as I am aware, this was the theory of Michael Simkins (The Roman Army from Caesar to Trajan, Osprey 1984, p.23), based on the reliefs on the Arch of Orange. I've never been convinced by this. I wonder what other people think?

"Mea Culpa", I'm afraid! AFIK, I first put forward this hypothesis regarding the evolution of the Roman 'scutum' in "Classical Warfare", Salamander 1980, p.148, not entirely based on the Arch of Orange by any means. Of course that is not to say that others have not before or since independently thought the same. Alas "proof", in the form of physical/archaeological evidence is not yet available, but if one rejects iconographic evidence totally, as some do rather than allow for artistic interpretation, then very little indeed about the Roman military can be 'proved'. Personally, I believe in a Holistic approach, taking into account ALL evidence, especially as 'physical' evidence is as open to mis-interpretation as iconography.

The original 'ovoid' type with spina and 'barleycorn' boss, exemplified by the 'Fayum/Kasr-el-Harit' shield ( now found again and apparently in the Cairo Police museum, of all places!) continued in use through Augustan times and is shown on Legionary grave reliefs down to the mid first-century AD. This 'traditional' type also appears on Praetorian reliefs even later (e.g. the Louvre relief).

However, around 10 BC the 'cut off' type with curved sides but straight top and bottom appears, also with 'spina' and 'barleycorn' boss. A little later the same type appears with a circular boss. Around 25 AD the familiar straight sided 'cylindrical' type as exemplified by the 'Dura' examples appears. All three types - curved sided with 'barleycorn' boss; curved sided with circular boss, and straight sided with circular boss) appear on Trajan's column and the Adamklissi reliefs - but not the 'traditional' ovoid type.
Attached is a rough scale diagram of scuta spanning a 4-500 year period, beginning with Polybius' scutum c.150 BC and ending with the Dura examples c. 250 BC. As can be seen, evolution in size compares very well with cutting off the top and bottom, then the 'new' circular boss, and finally the 'straight sided cylindrical' scutum. This sort of evolution is paralleled in developments in the Roman sword, dagger,helmet and pilum over similar periods. Interesting also is the small range in size, indicating that the 'optimum' size fell within a relatively small range, considering individual craftsmen making them over a large range of time and space....

The GREEN outline represents Polybius' dimensions ( often incorrectly given in English instead of Greek feet) and is 1.2 m x 0.76 m; The BLUE outline is the 'Fayum' shield, slightly taller and narrower, at 1.28m x 0.64 m ; the RED outline is the 'Dura' type, at 1.05 x 0.66-0.76 m ( estimated because it was slightly crushed, but had a chord of 0.85m). The grey area shows how by cutting off the top and bottom, the curved -sided type, of similar dimensions to the 'straight/cylindrical' type is arrived at.
I've also included in the rough sketch both the 'barleycorn' and circular bosses.....

[Paullus Scipio]

Oops! Accidental duplicate.....and I can't figure out how to "delete".....